Suspect Witnesses?

[Lewis C]

All timings in that era are estimates. Brown in particular could have been 5-10 minutes out as he was just estimating off how long he felt he had been home. Hardly accurate. Mortimer as well gives conflicting info that is incredibly difficult to work out but in my opinion she was likely at her door from around 12:45-12:55am, where she saw Leon Goldstein and then went inside for 5 minutes before hearing Diemschutz arrived. I think we can definitively place her at her door at 12:55am because Goldstein co-orborates her statement. The question with Mortimer is- did she come to the door after hearing PC Smith or BS man pass her door. I believe it was the latter.

The Geography of the area is not possible for us to be fully accurate about, solely going on maps. That is even the case today and we have Satillite navigation.

Why is Pipeman on the 'wrong side of the road'. Wrong how? He merely stated what he saw. How could he be on the wrong side.

Being described as theatrical and being described as someone who dressed as though they were in a theatrical line of work are two completely different things.

We can't track down Mary Kelly either in the records. So what does that make her? A figment of our imagination?

And lastly there is conflicting info about the Inquest where Swanson talks about his 'statement' at the Inquest so possibly he was allowed to give evidence in secret or had someone translate an actual statement for him to submit.

(bolding added)

I believe that Schwartz passing is also a possibility. Maybe even Pipeman.

[Lewis C]

I see what you mean - Stride could have left the gateway to get away from the big guy, and come across a much nicer fellow named Jack, as little as 10 feet away. Quite possibly Jack was actually a boarder at the Mortimer residence. Sure, Fanny didn't mention him going out for a walk around a quarter to one, but that doesn't mean she lied. A witness lying isn't the same thing as a potential witness keeping her mouth shut, right?

If you don't really have anything to say in response, it's OK to not respond at all.

[c.d.]

Exactly my point - you don't need to be a professional linguist to understand an assault when you see one.

I disagree. Schwartz certainly would have been able to describe what appeared to be B.S. man throwing Stride to the ground. His lack of understanding what was being said would not be a hindrance in that regard. But you said understand an assault when you see one. Well, that is where it starts to get a little tricky and where his lack of understanding does come into play. What if Stride had said "oh, that took me by surprise. Guess our legs got tangled up." And then the B.S. man apologized. But neither of those statements would have registered with Schwartz. Would you still describe that as an "assault?"

See the problem now?

c.d.

[c.d.]

And again, Andrew I would strongly suggest you look at the Modern Day B.S. Man/Stride thread. That puts it all into perspective in a real world scenario.

c.d.

[Sunny Delight]

You might appreciate this forum has debated Schwartz for decades, the same witnesses, the same details, the same circumstances, for roughly 30 years - yet every time 'we' seem to think 'we' can come up with a different solution.
You've heard the definition of madness, right?

What I'm doing (as detailed in my reply to Doc.), is try find some detail that has been overlooked. It must be something so obvious that it has never been questioned.
Somewhere in what we have read there is a fault, likely something we have all taken for granted, and I am suggesting the fault lies in the press version, and this whole story did come via an interpreter.

That doesn't answer my question. If Schwartz didn't know what street he was on or where he was in general as he couldn't read any street name going on your logic- how did he manage to find his way anywhere? Just walking around aimlessly hoping to find his house? Now that might sound flippant but the question is genuine.

You do raise an interesting point though in something being missed. Here is something I have been musing over- say Schwartz did live on Berner Street and he was checking if his wife had moved..Did he stop for a minute or two to check? Our scenario always has him almost immediately behind BS man the whole way uo Berner Street but what if he had actually stopped to check his wife had moved and BS man and Stride were involved in a conversation for longer than we imagined?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The basic premise at work here is that a part of the picture or even most of the picture is not necessarily the same as the entire picture. Schwartz never gets the entire picture due to the language barrier. So yes, while he can say I saw a woman being thrown on the footway, he has no way of knowing what instigated that. He has no clue to the B.S. man's intention. He would have no way of knowing if the B.S. man had said "oh sorry, miss. I didn't mean to pull so hard. My apologies." Or he might have missed Stride saying "that is okay, I should not have mouthed off to you or it was an accident, I think our legs got tangled up." Or the B.S. man saying "I'm Jack the Ripper and I am going to cut your throat."

Can you see how additional information or part of the situation not being clear can change perception?

While it's true that Schwartz would have had difficulty reading intentions, the man's throwing her onto the footway was unlikely to have been an accident, and her reaction to it would suggest that he wasn't trying to dance with her. The only hint we have as to what a witness supposed was going on, is the report that states that the incident was perceived to have been a quarrel between a husband and wife. Could a non-English speaker be expected to come to that conclusion? If yes, then Schwartz seemingly is reading the situation. If no, then the plot thickens, because we cannot be sure that Schwartz was the witness referred to.

Schwartz never got the whole picture.

He got enough of the picture for Robert Anderson to refer to the "supposed accomplice". This suggests an incident not involving a lone murderer.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The fact that Schwartz was out and about while his wife was at home doing the moving suggests that he was doing something work-related so possibly he was expected to dress smartly. It maybe that the couple were a little better off than most but they were still living in a very poor area.

That is not a fact, it's your opinion.

It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane.

She is moving. The report says nothing about them both moving.

When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved.

In the 21st century, that sort of behaviour would be referred to as stalking.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Fanny goes indoors at 12.55.

Stride arrives at the gateway 12.56/7

BS man enters Berner Street (followed by Schwartz) at 12.59

The incident occurs, Schwartz and Pipeman flee the scene

Diemschitz arrives just after BS man has cut Stride’s throat.

According to the '10-minute' theory, the above would have been coincident with this:

Locking the door, she prepared to retire to bed, in the front room on the ground floor, and it so happened that in about four minutes' time she heard Diemschitz's pony cart pass the house, and remarked upon the circumstance to her husband.

Odd that Fanny was able to hear passing footsteps, but not the incident. What do you suppose accounts for that?

Mrs Diemschitz: Just about one o'clock on Sunday morning I was in the kitchen on the ground floor of the club, and close to the side entrance, serving tea and coffee for the members who were singing upstairs. Up till then I had not heard a sound-not even a whisper. Then suddenly I saw my husband enter, looking very scared and frightened. I inquired what was the matter, but all he did was to excitedly ask for a match or candle, as there was a body in the yard. The door had been, and still was, half open, and through the aperture the light from the gas jets in the kitchen was streaming out into the yard. I at once complied with his request and gave him some matches. He then rushed out into the yard, and I followed him to the doorway, where I remained. Just by the door I saw a pool of blood, and when my husband struck a light I noticed a dark lump lying under the wall. I at once recognised it as the body of a woman, while, to add to my horror, I saw a stream of blood trickling down the yard, and terminating in the pool I had first noticed. She was lying on her back with her head against the wall, and the face looked ghastly.

How do you account for:

* the women in the kitchen not even hearing a whisper from outside?

* the blood trickling down the yard all the way to the side door, so soon after the murder?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Exactly my point - you don't need to be a professional linguist to understand an assault when you see one.

I disagree. Schwartz certainly would have been able to describe what appeared to be B.S. man throwing Stride to the ground. His lack of understanding what was being said would not be a hindrance in that regard. But you said understand an assault when you see one. Well, that is where it starts to get a little tricky and where his lack of understanding does come into play. What if Stride had said "oh, that took me by surprise. Guess our legs got tangled up." And then the B.S. man apologized. But neither of those statements would have registered with Schwartz. Would you still describe that as an "assault?"

See the problem now?

c.d.

Sort of, although the notion of BS man apologizing, stretches the imagination.

On the subject of understanding, how do we explain the following?

It seems that he had gone out for the day, and his wife had expected to move, during his absence, from their lodgings in Berner-street to others in Backchurch-lane. When he came homewards about a quarter before one he first walked down Berner-street to see if his wife had moved. As he turned the corner from Commercial-road he noticed some distance in front of him a man walking as if partially intoxicated. He walked on behind him, and presently he noticed a woman standing in the entrance to the alley way where the body was afterwards found. The half-tipsy man halted and spoke to her. The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage, but, feeling rather timid of getting mixed up in quarrels, he crossed to the other side of the street.

Why does the report say he "saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage"? This implies she had come from along the passage, not from the street. How could Schwartz know that? Unless we can explain why Liz Stride would have had reason to go down the passage, why not suppose that the woman has come from along the passage, because she currently resides out the back of the club?

[Wickerman]

That doesn't answer my question. If Schwartz didn't know what street he was on or where he was in general as he couldn't read any street name going on your logic- how did he manage to find his way anywhere? Just walking around aimlessly hoping to find his house? Now that might sound flippant but the question is genuine.

Street signs, unlit, high up on a house wall, and at 12:30 am, will not likely be easily readable anyway, assuming 'we' even read English - which apparently Schwartz didn't.
Which I think undermines the premise of your question.
The proposal has nothing to do with sense of direction, all the streets in that block ran N-S, whether he passed through Berner, Batty, Christian or Grove he is still heading south.

There may even be other factors we know nothing about, the pubs closed at 12:00 am, he passed this altercation about 12:45 am., had he been drinking somewhere?
Maybe that explains his immediate reaction to run away, instead of going to the woman's assistance, as many men would?

This also may explain him not being sure which street this altercation took place in?
In Batty St. there is also a pub (Red Lion), with a yard attached to the south-side, the same as with the Jewish Club and Dutfields Yard - the layout is similar enough.

Schwartz did not go to police until late Sunday afternoon, had he been sleeping something off, waiting until he was more sober?
Or maybe he thought nothing of what he saw, until he heard of the murder in Berner St.?
If he did live close by, he would surely have been wakened early by the excitement, so why the wait?

You do raise an interesting point though in something being missed. Here is something I have been musing over- say Schwartz did live on Berner Street and he was checking if his wife had moved..Did he stop for a minute or two to check? Our scenario always has him almost immediately behind BS man the whole way uo Berner Street but what if he had actually stopped to check his wife had moved and BS man and Stride were involved in a conversation for longer than we imagined?

Yes, he may have halted momentarily, would we expect that to have been mentioned in the police report?

[c.d.]

Why does the report say he "saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage"? This implies she had come from along the passage, not from the street. How could Schwartz know that?

I think it more likely that it implies he pushed her backwards meaning direction wise and the opposite of pulling her forward. That would be my take on it.

c.d.